BUSINESSMAN Michel Harper has cost each household in Guildford more than £70 as a result of planning appeals and legal challenges to the Civic Hall, the council has said.

Guildford Borough Council leader, Andrew Hodges, told councillors at a full meeting last week Mr Harper’s latest challenge on the civic hall project would push the £3.8 million bill even higher.

Cllr Hodges was responding to a question from Guildford resident Michael Drakeford, who wanted to know how many of Mr Harper’s 23 appeals had been accepted and their cost to the council.

Mr Drakeford also asked how much objections made by Mr Harper to the civic hall development had cost the taxpayer. “I am disturbed about the sums of money Mr Harper is costing the local taxpayer, of which I am one,” he said. “Like many residents, I deplore the lack of an active civic hall.”

Mr Harper, who owns bars in Guildford, challenged the council over whether it was appropriate to grant Taylor-Woodrow the contract for the civic project. However, the developers pulled out of the scheme in March due to “delays outside its control”, leaving the project back at square one.

Cllr Hodges told the council Mr Harper has won five of his 23 planning appeals, costing the council £261,000. But he added the council has spent £825,000 on legal fees and planning advice since Mr Harper’s first challenge to the civic hall development in March 2002, £536,000 of which is directly attributable to the businessman.

The true financial impact of these challenges is the spiralling costs of the project, according to Cllr Hodges, of which £3 million is due to Mr Harper. The council leader said: “The main impact of Mr Harper’s unsuccessful legal challenges on the civic project is the rising costs, which would not be incurred had there been no challenges.”

“I would not be willing to authorise further expenditure by this council on initiating litigation against Mr Harper or his companies as it would add yet more costs and further delay,” said Cllr Hodges.

Mr Harper said poor council decision-making was to blame, and feared he is being made a scapegoat for the civic hall debacle. “Am I being groomed to be the fall guy for the failure of the council to provide the civic hall, and completing a U-turn in proposing to do a refurbishment rather than a comprehensive re-development?” he asked.

He also questioned various council decisions, which he claims pushes him to appeal, and said these reports must have cost the taxpayer too. He said: “I am forced into these positions with the decisions that are being made. Maybe we should return to the time that members are surcharged if a bad decision is made.”

He said the challenges concerning the civic hall were totally proper, and the first challenge resulted in the council abandoning its tender process. “I am surprised that the council is advocating that the tender process is not open to public scrutiny,” he added.

“If these costs have been incurred as they say, t hen this should be referred to the district auditor to investigate if the council has acted appropriately.

“This brings into question whether I can be viewed by the council or officers in an unbiased way in the applications that are being made.”

He berated the decision to refuse the hours he wants for a casino, which was granted planning permission on appeal. “Where is the logic in that decision?” Mr Harper asked. “That is costing the taxpayer money to defend.”